Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 46

Thread: 5.56 vs. .223 chamber image source

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,922
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Ned,

    Whats your take on the Wylde chamber?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by ccoker View Post
    my understanding is that a 5.56 chambering is generally less accurate than a 223 chambering when shooting 223 ammo

    thoughts?
    Correct. On a fighting weapon, reliability is more important than accuracy.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Heavy Metal View Post
    Ned,

    Whats your take on the Wylde chamber?
    Not Ned, but my .02 is that they are a bad idea. Reason being is that they can be overly tight and you can get into feeding issues with NATO ammo (especially MK262 and Hornady T2).



    C4

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,022
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Correct. On a fighting weapon, reliability is more important than accuracy.
    I would agree..

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    145
    Feedback Score
    0
    I second that...............

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,229
    Feedback Score
    21 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Dobbs View Post
    And when the day arrives that I can outshoot my carbine from real world working positions and conditions, I shall commence to worrying about that horrible loss of accuracy from shooting a 5.56 NATO chamber!

    Well said Grasshopper!
    GET IN YOUR BUBBLE!

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    1,857
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Not Ned, but my .02 is that they are a bad idea. Reason being is that they [Wylde chambers] can be overly tight and you can get into feeding issues with NATO ammo (especially MK262 and Hornady T2).



    C4
    Resurrecting this thread, from Ned's latest in SWAT, a Wylde, a true Wylde, is as generous dimensionally as a NATO chamber in all of the body dimensions.

    The throat diameter is the only dimension where it's tighter than a NATO chamber. The neck is more generous, the throat is longer, and the leade angle is the same.

    Is there some dimension you're aware of that makes the Wylde less reliable? Is it the throat dimension that you believe detracts from it's relaibility? Have you seen Randall's posted reamer dimensions? Have you seen the data Ned posted in the SWAT article?

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    AZ-Waging jihad against crappy AR's.
    Posts
    24,902
    Feedback Score
    104 (100%)
    Grant,

    I totally agree. When I was on the Battalion Rifle Team we were shooting at pop-ups with the M16A2 at 500M and with good consistency. Were they effective? Who knows. Having said that I believe that most engagements in theater and elsewhere are happening at 300M or less. The M16/ M4 is more than capable of making hits at those distances. What I want it a weapon that goes bang every time I pull the trigger and not "click".

    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Correct. On a fighting weapon, reliability is more important than accuracy.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    145
    Feedback Score
    0
    .

    The throat diameter is the only dimension where it's tighter than a NATO chamber. The neck is more generous, the throat is longer, and the leade angle is the same.

    Is there some dimension you're aware of that makes the Wylde less reliable? Is it the throat dimension that you believe detracts from it's relaibility? Have you seen Randall's posted reamer dimensions? Have you seen the data Ned posted in the SWAT article?[/QUOTE]


    I have to be honest, I haven't done much in the way of researching the actual differences in the Wylde and Nato 5.56 chambers. I can tell you that in my experience I have had trouble with the Wylde chambered barrels, they have been very picky as to the ammo they would digest, if the chamber dimensions are the same on paper then most of the manufactures have not stuck by it and are putting out some tight chambers. In today's times with ammo at the price it is, most of the shooting public need barrels that will work with the lower priced and lower quality ammo. Just my 2$ worth...................AD

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    1,857
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ADC View Post
    .

    The throat diameter is the only dimension where it's tighter than a NATO chamber. The neck is more generous, the throat is longer, and the leade angle is the same.

    Is there some dimension you're aware of that makes the Wylde less reliable? Is it the throat dimension that you believe detracts from it's relaibility? Have you seen Randall's posted reamer dimensions? Have you seen the data Ned posted in the SWAT article?

    I have to be honest, I haven't done much in the way of researching the actual differences in the Wylde and Nato 5.56 chambers. I can tell you that in my experience I have had trouble with the Wylde chambered barrels, they have been very picky as to the ammo they would digest, if the chamber dimensions are the same on paper then most of the manufactures have not stuck by it and are putting out some tight chambers. In today's times with ammo at the price it is, most of the shooting public need barrels that will work with the lower priced and lower quality ammo. Just my 2$ worth...................AD
    A couple of questions, and I don't mean for the first to be insulting:

    (1) Are you sure these are Wylde-chambered weapons? RRA's or some other? Or might they be some other match-style chamber, and you're just assuming they are Wylde's?

    (2) Do you know the cleaning patterns of the operators? Are these guys who never clean their barrels and just occasionally lube the BCG with some CLP or lube? Any idea if the unreliability is evident with a recently cleaned weapon or only after many hundred rounds? I'm wondering if the .224-throated Wylde throat can't tolerate as many rounds between cleanings as a more generous .2265-.2270-throated NATO chamber? But run brush through the throat every so often, and the problem disappears? Just a theory......

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •